Evidence synthesis · §4
Clinical evidence for growth-hormone secretagogues supplied for research — summary of findings
Outcome-by-outcome summary with effect, certainty and the reason for each downgrade.
§4Summary of findings
§4.1Summary of findings
Table 7. Summary of findings for Clinical evidence for growth-hormone secretagogues supplied for research.
| Outcome | Participants (studies) | Effect as reported | Certainty | Reason for downgrade |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peak stimulated growth hormoneThe outcome the Institute designates as anchor for this indication. | — (8) | The clinical development of every compound in this group was directed at diagnosis of growth-hormone deficiency, at a specific disease indication, or… | Very low | risk of bias, publication bias |
| Discontinuation for adverse eventsReported as a summary-of-findings row rather than in a tolerability annex, following a public submission. | — (7) | Reported per contributing trial; see the included-studies table | Very low | imprecision, publication bias |
| Serious adverse eventsEvent counts are low; the estimate is imprecise by construction. | — (6) | Reported per contributing trial; see the included-studies table | Very low | indirectness, publication bias |
| Any adverse eventAscertained by spontaneous report in the contributing trials. | — (6) | Reported per contributing trial; see the included-studies table | Very low | risk of bias, indirectness, publication bias |
| Change in IGF-1 and IGFBP-3A secondary outcome for this indication. Its hierarchical position within each contributing trial is recorded on that trial's abstract where the Institute holds it. | — (7) | Reported as a secondary outcome in a subset of contributing trials | Very low | risk of bias, indirectness, publication bias |
| Body composition by DXAA secondary outcome for this indication. Its hierarchical position within each contributing trial is recorded on that trial's abstract where the Institute holds it. | — (7) | Reported as a secondary outcome in a subset of contributing trials | Very low | inconsistency, imprecision, publication bias |
| Certainty ratings describe confidence in the effect estimate for the stated outcome. They are not recommendations and do not transfer between outcomes. | ||||
§4.2Forest plot
Study estimatePooled estimate
§4.3Certainty assessment for the anchor outcome
Table 8. Reasoning recorded against each certainty domain for the anchor outcome.
| Domain | Rating | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Risk of bias | Serious | Contributing trials are sponsor-conducted and one is open-label. |
| Inconsistency | No concern | No serious concern identified in this domain. |
| Indirectness | No concern | No serious concern identified in this domain. |
| Imprecision | No concern | No serious concern identified in this domain. |
| Publication bias | Very serious | The evidence base is small, recent and wholly sponsor-generated. |
| Overall: Very low certainty. The Institute has very little confidence in the effect estimate. The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate. In this series a very low rating most often reflects an absence of controlled human evidence rather than conflicting evidence. | ||
Compound Evidence Institute · CEI-ES-016/4 · https://compoundevidence.com/syntheses/gh-secretagogue-clinical-evidence/summary-of-findings/ · retrieved 30 July 2026